Author Archives: wthornburg

Missouri task force looks to strengthen driving safety laws

November 22, 2017

Safety was the key word in discussions at a recent task force meeting in Jefferson City, Mo., that discussed Missouri’s transportation system.

The task force, named Missouri’s 21st Century Transportation System task force, is charged with reviewing the funding of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT).

Between 1999-2016, MoDOT installed 800 miles of guard cable on Missouri interstates. According to MoDOT representatives, the guard cable has saved more than 500 lives. The cost of the safety cables, approximately $125,000 per mile. And another $10,000 per mile is needed to maintain annually.

Missouri has the seventh-largest state highway system, with 33,884 miles of roadway.

MoDOT says fatality crashes increased nine percent in 2016. Hood testifies 950 people died in Missouri traffic crashes in 2016.

Deaths continue to occur as motorists continue to drive without buckling up, driving intoxicated, texting while driving, and speeding. Sometimes deaths result because all of these factors. Deaths from traffic crashes increased nine percent in 2016, with 950 deaths in 2016 alone.

There are 16 states, including Missouri, without a primary seat belt law. Considering that Missouri is 50th ranked in a safety report by the National Safety Council (NSC).

This fact has MoDOT out front pushing state lawmakers to approve a primary seatbelt law. Already 53 municipalities have passed their own primary seat belt laws.

Some of the suggestions for increased driving safety have been strengthening laws for child passengers, no-texting laws, seatbelt laws, and the use of red-light traffic cameras.

MoDOT has come out to describe distracted driving that includes texting to be an epidemic, with nearly 40,000 deaths a year across the nation. MoDOT bans its drivers from driving and texting, and some 250 companies across the state are committing to ban its employees from texting and driving while on duty. Recommendations from the task force are expected by the first of next year.

With Missouri being the 47th lowest in fuel taxes in the nation, the task force is looking to fund the increased safety measures with a potential fuel tax increase. Strong opposition is expected to block any fuel tax increase.

Missouri DWI laws and treatment courts

November 21, 2017

Ever wonder about the underlying mechanics of how Missouri’s DWI laws have been put together? For the answer to that question, you need to look at House Bill 1695 that went into effect August 28, 2010.

The bill changed the laws for repeat alcohol offenders and drivers with high blood-alcohol levels. It also affected how a person qualifies for driving privileges. Other changes included the following:

• Creation of a centralized reporting database that tracks all driving-while-impaired offenses, from arrest to disposition.

• Prevents municipal courts from hearing an intoxication-related case if the offender has two or more “intoxicated-related” offenses, or two or more “alcohol-related” offenses.

• DWI courts were established to facilitate treatment for repeat offenders and drivers with high blood-alcohol levels.

• Establishes criteria for qualifying participants and graduates of a DWI court program to obtain a court-ordered limited driving privilege.

• Prohibits a first alcohol-related driving offense from being expunged from a person’s record if the person has another alcohol-related contact on record, or another alcohol-related action pending.

For more information, here is the link to the Department of Revenue to find out more: http://dor.mo.gov/faq/drivers/dwi.php. The DOR website offers a Q&A section that answers many questions you may have. Here are a few:

Can a DWI Court grant me a limited driving privilege when I participate in or graduate from its program, if I have more than one alcohol-related traffic offense on my record?
Yes. Section 302.309.3(9) now allows a DWI Court to grant a limited driving privilege to a participant or graduate of the program who may otherwise be ineligible for limited driving privilege. If you are granted a limited driving privilege by the DWI Court, the Department of Revenue will update your driving record to show the limited driving privilege.

I’ve heard that if my case is in a DWI Court, and I plead guilty to or am found guilty of a first-time driving while intoxicated offense, and my blood alcohol concentration is .15%, I would not be eligible for a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for the alcohol-related traffic offense. Is this true?
No. In a county in which there is a DWI court, you may receive an SIS so long as:
•You are placed on probation for a minimum of two years; and
•You successfully complete the DWI court or court-ordered treatment program.
What will the DWI Court program consist of? The program will combine judicial supervision, drug testing, continuous alcohol monitoring, substance abuse traffic offender program compliance, and treatment.

Is there a fee to participate in a DWI court program? A DWI Court may assess you with any and all necessary costs of your participation.

When is the earliest I can be issued a limited driving privilege if I am a participant in or graduate of the program? You must complete a minimum of 45 days of participation in the program and be approved by the DWI Court.

Am I required to have an SR-22 insurance filing if a DWI Court has issued me a limited driving privilege?
Yes. You are required to maintain an SR-22 insurance filing for the duration of your limited driving privilege.

Am I required to have an ignition interlock device in my car if a DWI Court has issued me a limited driving privilege? Yes, if you have more than one alcohol-related enforcement contact.

If I have a first alcohol-related driving offense on my record that is over 10 years old and now I have a new one pending in court, can I have the old alcohol-related offense expunged from my record? No. The new law prohibits the Department of Revenue from expunging the alcohol-related driving offense from your record because you have another alcohol-related offense pending.

The law balancing safety v. excessive regulation-punishment

November 3, 2017

Ever wonder where cities get their authority to implement traffic laws? In Missouri, the state legislature has passed multiple statutes related to traffic. One statute, 304.010, sets out maximum speed limits and penalties, and grants authority to cities to set those limits.

One provision, states that cities, towns and villages may regulate the speed of vehicles on state roads and highways within their cities’, towns’ or villages’ corporate limits. To do so, they must pass an ordinance with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission.

The statute says that if there is any reduction of speed in these cities, towns or villages, they must be designed to expedite the flow of traffic on state roads or highways to be consistent with public safety. That basically means the commission can declare any cities’ ordinance void if it finds that such ordinance is not designed to expedite traffic flow, and it was primarily designed to produce revenue for the city that enacted the ordinance.

The bottom line, thankfully, is that cities do have statewide oversight when it comes to regulating traffic within their boundaries. This helps us find that balance between public safety versus excessive regulations and punishment.

The statute is below if you want to learn more:

304.010. Definitions — maximum speed limits — cities, towns, villages, certain counties, may set speed limit, how set — slower speeds set, when — violations, penalty. — 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Expressway”, a divided highway of at least ten miles in length with four or more lanes which is not part of the federal interstate system of highways which has crossovers or accesses from streets, roads or other highways at the same grade level as such divided highway;
(2) “Freeway”, a limited access divided highway of at least ten miles in length with four or more lanes which is not part of the federal interstate system of highways which does not have any crossovers or accesses from streets, roads or other highways at the same grade level as such divided highway within such ten miles of divided highway;
(3) “Rural interstate”, that part of the federal interstate highway system that is not located in an urban area;
(4) “Urbanized area”, an area of fifty thousand population at a density at or greater than one thousand persons per square mile.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the uniform maximum speed limits are and no vehicle shall be operated in excess of the speed limits established pursuant to this section:

(1) Upon the rural interstates and freeways of this state, seventy miles per hour;
(2) Upon the rural expressways of this state, sixty-five miles per hour;
(3) Upon the interstate highways, freeways or expressways within the urbanized areas of this state, sixty miles per hour;
(4) All other roads and highways in this state not located in an urbanized area and not provided for in subdivisions (1) to (3) of this subsection, sixty miles per hour;
(5) All other roads provided for in subdivision (4) of this subsection shall not include any state two-lane road which is identified by letter. Such lettered roads shall not exceed fifty-five miles per hour unless set at a higher speed as established by the department of transportation, except that no speed limit shall be set higher than sixty miles per hour;
(6) For the purposes of enforcing the speed limit laws of this state, it is a rebuttable presumption that the posted speed limit is the legal speed limit.

3. On any state road or highway where the speed limit is not set pursuant to a local ordinance, the highways and transportation commission may set a speed limit higher or lower than the uniform maximum speed limit provided in subsection 2 of this section, if a higher or lower speed limit is recommended by the department of transportation. The department of public safety, where it believes for safety reasons, or to expedite the flow of traffic a higher or lower speed limit is warranted, may request the department of transportation to raise or lower such speed limit, except that no speed limit shall be set higher than seventy miles per hour.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 304.120 or any other provision of law to the contrary, cities, towns and villages may regulate the speed of vehicles on state roads and highways within such cities’, towns’ or villages’ corporate limits by ordinance with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission. Any reduction of speed in cities, towns or villages shall be designed to expedite the flow of traffic on such state roads and highways to the extent consistent with public safety. The commission may declare any ordinance void if it finds that such ordinance is:
(1) Not primarily designed to expedite traffic flow; and
(2) Primarily designed to produce revenue for the city, town or village which enacted such ordinance.
If an ordinance is declared void, the city, town or village shall have any future proposed ordinance approved by the highways and transportation commission before such ordinance may take effect.
5. The county commission of any county of the second, third or fourth classification may set the speed limit or the weight limit or both the speed limit and the weight limit on roads or bridges on any county, township or road district road in the county and, with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission, on any state road or highway not within the limits of any incorporated city, town or village, lower than the uniform maximum speed limit as provided in subsection 2 of this section where the condition of the road or the nature of the area requires a lower speed. The maximum speed limit set by the county commission of any county of the second, third, or fourth classification for any road under the commission’s jurisdiction shall not exceed fifty-five miles per hour if such road is properly marked by signs indicating such speed limit. If the county commission does not mark the roads with signs indicating the speed limit, the speed limit shall be fifty miles per hour. The commission shall send copies of any order establishing a speed limit or weight limit on roads and bridges on a county, township or road district road in the county to the chief engineer of the state department of transportation, the superintendent of the state highway patrol and to any township or road district maintaining roads in the county. After the roads have been properly marked by signs indicating the speed limits and weight limits set by the county commission, the speed limits and weight limits shall be of the same effect as the speed limits provided for in subsection 1 of this section and shall be enforced by the state highway patrol and the county sheriff as if such speed limits and weight limits were established by state law.
6. The county commission of any county of the second, third, or fourth classification may by ordinance set a countywide speed limit on roads within unincorporated areas of any county, township, or road district in the county and may establish reasonable speed regulations for motor vehicles within the limit of such county. No person who is not a resident of such county and who has not been within the limits thereof for a continuous period of more than forty-eight hours shall be convicted of a violation of such ordinances, unless it is shown by competent evidence that there was posted at the place where the boundary of such county road enters the county a sign displaying in black letters not less than four inches high and one inch wide on a white background the speed fixed by such county so that such signs may be clearly seen by operators and drivers from their vehicles upon entering such county. The commission shall send copies of any order establishing a countywide speed limit on a county, township, or road district road in the county to the chief engineer of the Missouri department of transportation, the superintendent of the state highway patrol, and to any township or road district maintaining roads in the county. After the boundaries of the county roads entering the county have been properly marked by signs indicating the speed limits set by the county commission, the speed limits shall be of the same effect as the speed limits provided for in subsection 1 of this section and shall be enforced by the state highway patrol and the county sheriff as if such speed limits were established by state law.
7. All road signs indicating speed limits or weight limits shall be uniform in size, shape, lettering and coloring and shall conform to standards established by the department of transportation.
8. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to alter any speed limit set below fifty-five miles per hour by any ordinance of any county, city, town or village of the state adopted before March 13, 1996.
9. The speed limits established pursuant to this section shall not apply to the operation of any emergency vehicle as defined in section 304.022.
10. A violation of the provisions of this section shall not be construed to relieve the parties in any civil action on any claim or counterclaim from the burden of proving negligence or contributory negligence as the proximate cause of any accident or as the defense to a negligence action.
11. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor, unless such person was exceeding the posted speed limit by twenty miles per hour or more then it is a class B misdemeanor.

 

Missouri’s open container law diverts funds to road safety

October 24, 2017

Since 2001, Missouri has been paying millions in penalties for its refusal to obey a federal law prohibiting passengers in moving vehicles from drinking alcohol. The state’s open container law has cost Missouri $275 million that could have been used to road and bridge construction.

Never mind, the Missouri Department of Transportation says, it needs $825 million to maintain its roads. Though this sounds counterintuitive, Missouri’s non-compliance with the law is a good thing because it is inadvertently saving lives. How is that?

Due to the federal penalties, the money has had to be spent elsewhere, such as on small engineering projects and alcohol awareness programs and measures. Although MoDOT needs the funds, they are quick to concede the penalties that have led to the loss of the designated funds have been a blessing for the state’s transportation system.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century mandates that states who refuse to ban open containers to spend 3 percent of their federal highway construction funds on safety initiatives, and not on new pavement projects.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, the funds can be used for law enforcement purposes, “alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures,” or “hazard elimination” projects.

MoDOT data indicates Missouri’s penalty in the last fiscal year was about $21.4 million. Roughly 25 percent was spent on safety measures and about 75 percent on road projects that eliminate driving hazards.

Diverting spending from highway construction has allowed state workers to install hundreds of miles of median guard cables, which Miller said has “saved hundreds of lives.” Other projects funded by the penalty funding include installing rumble strips on shoulders, enforcing driving laws, funding DWI courts and educating newer drivers. MoDOT claims the diversion of these funds to these transportation safety and enforcement measures has saved hundreds of lives.

Columbia bill makes texting and driving an offense for all ages

October 18, 2017

The City of Columbia, Missouri, is considering passing a bill that will ban texting while driving for drivers of all ages.

Currently, there is a statewide rule that prohibits texting for drivers 21 years old and younger. If passed, the ordinance would make Columbia one of the few Missouri towns that bans texting for all ages.

However, the legal grounds to pass such a regulation is questionable. 

Supporters of the bill argue that they will have different approach for violators 22 years and older. Columbia police will be directed to issue tickets to the older adults only after another primary traffic offense has happened. The current state law for 21 and younger makes driving while texting a primary offense that police can pull the younger drivers over. The law prohibits the use of a cell phone to “send, read or write a text message or electronic message.” The older drivers must first commit another violation before they get a citation.

The law, however, is different for commercial motor vehicle driving. Those drivers are prohibited to use hand-held cell phones to text or make a call.

The consensus among the legal community is unclear whether municipals have the power to pass more restrictive laws on texting. In St. Louis County, the City of Kirkwood has adopted a more stringent ordinance but most other cities have not because attorneys disagree about the issue.

The Columbia ban was a recommendation from a 2016 Mayor’s Task Force on Pedestrian Safety.

Distracted driving, which includes texting while driving, is a common reason for deadly or injurious traffic crashes in Columbia.

According to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, since the start of 2017, there were 125 vehicle crashes in related to distracted driving, a category that includes driving and texting.  Of those, 24 of the crashes involved injuries, with five injuries disabling.

Appellate Court allows Portable Breath Test results for probable cause

September 26, 2017

A recent Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District opinion held that the state statute provides that a portable breath test result is admissible to show probable cause of a driver’s intoxication, but that it depended on the test’s numerical reading, which is therefore admissible for that purpose.

The case was an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District from Greene County. Judge Mary W. Sheffield, P.J., authored the opinion, with Judges Gary W. Lynch and Don E. Burrell concurring.

The Defendant, Charles Hollis Roux, was charged with driving while intoxicated. The defendant filed motion to suppress all evidence in the case. The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed. The state raised two points of alleged error. First, State argued that trial court’s decision was not supported by substantial evidenced, and, second, that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the result of the portable breath test. Because the State’s second point had merit, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case. “Moreover, as the admission of the test result will add additional relevant evidence for the trial court to consider on remand, we need not address the State’s first point,” the opinion stated.

The appellate court went on to day: “It is true the admissibility of the result of a portable breath test is “narrowly restricted by statute.” State v. Morgenroth, 227 S.W.3d 517, 521(Mo. App. S.D. 2007). The statute permits specified law enforcement officers to administer pre-arrest chemical tests of a suspect’s blood alcohol content under certain circumstances.2 § 577.021.1. Moreover, “[a] test administered pursuant to this section shall be admissible as evidence of probable cause to arrest and as exculpatory evidence, but shall not be admissible as evidence of blood alcohol content.” § 577.021.3. That is, the result of a portable breath test is admissible to show an officer had probable cause to arrest. See, e.g., Morgenroth, 227 S.W.3d at 522 (quoting § 577.021.3).”

The appellate court went on to conclude: ” On remand the trial court should consider the unstricken testimony that the result of the portable breath test was greater than .08 percent and reevaluate its determination of the existence of probable cause in light of all of the evidence and argument presented at the hearing.

Missouri appellate court rules on DWI probable cause standard

September 6, 2017

A recent Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District decision continues to give law enforcement a low burden to show probable cause to pull a DWI suspect over.

The case is Brian Charles Srader v. the Department of Revenue.  Srader was arrested for driving while intoxicated on February 15, 2015.  A breath test was performed on Srader at the police station.  The test showed that he had a blood alcohol content of .122 percent.  The Director of Revenue then suspended his driving privileges. Srader then petitioned the circuit court for a trial de novo with the sole witness being the arresting officer.  After the trial, the court entered its judgment to set aside the suspension of Srader’s driving privileges. The judge had found that the Director’s evidence was credible and that Srader had a BAC level over the legal limit of .08 percent. Despite the strong evidence for intoxication, the judge ruled that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest Srader for an alcohol-related traffic offense.  The Director of Revenue appealed to the court of appeals.

The appellate court reversed and remanded the circuit court’s decision. It held that the evidence which the circuit court found credible also established multiple indicia of intoxication. And these multiple indicia of intoxication was enough to establish probable cause for the arrest.  For example, the officer had seen Srader driving erratically.  And after the stop, the officer stated that Srader’s eyes were watery, glassy, and bloodshot and his speech was slurred.  Furthermore, the officer testified that Srader made inconsistent and suspicious statements about where he was coming from and if he had had anything to drink. Srader also voluntarily submitted to a breath test which showed that alcohol was present.

The court said that these facts when taken together was enough to show to the senses of a reasonably prudent person that Srader had been driving while intoxicated.  The circuit court had erred by concluding that probable cause was lacking in the arrest.

The opinion was written by Judge Alok Ahuja. The other two judges were Cynthia L. Martin and Lisa White Hardwick.  Attorney for the appellant was Rachel M. Jones. Theodore D. Barnes was attorney for respondent.

Foundation requirements for prior convictions in DWI

September 4, 2017

A recent Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District opinion shows the importance of prosecutors laying a proper evidentiary foundation to introduce evidence of prior convictions in driving while intoxicated cases.

 

In the case of State v. Gary Lee Pylypczuk, following a jury trial in the circuit court of Clay County, Mr. Pylypczuk appealed his conviction of driving while intoxicated.  The DWI was in violation of § 577.010. Pylypczuk argued that the circuit court improperly admitted evidence of his status as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender because the evidence was not properly authenticated.

 

The court reversed the sentence imposed by the Court and remanded the case for jury sentencing.

 

In its holding, the Appellate Court stated that Section 577.023 does not allow records from the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System’s Driving While Intoxicated Tracking System (DWITS) to be admitted to prove a prior conviction in the absence of any foundation.

 

The Appellate Court went on to hold that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation to support admission of evidence of Pylypczuk’s prior convictions, and that without evidence of prior convictions, Pylypczuk could not be sentenced as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender.

 

The Appellate Court stated in its opinion: “Because Exhibit 2 lacked adequate authentication, it was not admissible and the circuit court erred in admitting it. Furthermore, because Exhibit 2 was used to establish one of the two convictions rendering Pylypczuk a persistent offender, he was prejudiced by the erroneous admission. We, therefore, reverse the finding of the circuit court that Pylypczuk is a persistent offender and the resulting sentence and remand for jury sentencing as a class B misdemeanor offender.”

 

The Special Division Judges were Zel M. Fischer, Special Judge, Presiding, and Karen King

Mitchell and Cynthia L. Martin. Judge King Mitchell wrote the opinion.

MO state troopers to start patrolling St. Louis highways

August 22, 2017

The City of St. Louis highways will be getting some help when it comes to highway traffic enforcement.

The Missouri Highway Patrol will soon be patrolling the interstates in St. Louis. It will be a 90-day pilot program to free up police officers to focus on violent crimes in the city.

The patrols will focus on certain stretches of Interstates 70 and 55 that are located within city limits. Approximately 20 to 30 troopers will be assigned to the program with about eight troopers on each shift.

The trooper patrols, which are expected to start in early July, will be available to assist city police officers if they need assistance. As to how many city officers would be freed up is unclear at this point. Apparently this type of temporary program had been used once before during a spike in violent crime in February of 2015.  Then police Chief Sam Dotson had requested the assistance.

State troopers don’t currently patrol interstates that within the city.  Troopers are expected to come from Troop C which have areas of extra personnel and by combining several zones and adjusting schedules to maintain current levels of coverage.

The push this time seems to be coming from within Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens’ office.  Last December the Governor’s wife was robbed outside a café.  Crime in St. Louis has increased in recent weeks. The latest statistics show overall crime is down slightly but aggravated assaults with a gun are up 27 percent over the same time period last year. Homicides are similar to last year’s numbers.

MoDOT officials advise drivers to be cautious on eclipse day

August 18, 2017

It will be the first total solar eclipse in the St. Louis area since 1442.  At the same time local officials are concerned about traffic safety.

Transportation and police agencies across Missouri and Illinois have issued warnings about next Monday’s solar eclipse, warning that traffic snarls and potentially accidents could occur when motorists travel from prime viewing areas.

Jefferson and Franklin counties and points farther south are expected to be among the top spots for Missourians to watch the eclipse.

A national task force of communications personnel from each of 14 states in the eclipse’s “totality” path was created to help address traffic safety concerns.  Because this is rare event, the task force has had to look at how southern states have adapted and prepared for hurricanes. 

In Missouri, MoDOT has increased the number of staffers on motorist assist  vehicles.  They will work with the Missouri Highway Patrol to monitor highway rest areas for congestion.  The expectation is that if the rest areas get filled up, they will have to be closed.

MoDOT expects to see a large increase of motorists in the state.  Estimates place it anywhere between 300,000 to 1.2 million visitors from other states who will be traveling to this central state to see the eclipse.  Excess traffic is expected not just the day of the eclipse but the day before and after as well.

Illinois also expects an uptick in traffic. Estimates are from 100,000 to 200,000 expected to visit the southern Illinois viewing areas near Carbondale.

Because of the increased traffic, transportation leasers are advising visitors to find a safe location, arrive extra early, remain there for a good period afterwards, and leave late.

Drivers are encouraged to turn on their headlights and watch out for pedestrians on smaller roads. People are expected to be randomly parking and walking shortly before the eclipse to get good vantage points and drivers must be aware of their safety.

MoDOT is warning drivers that they cannot stop on interstate highways and that parking is illegal on shoulders.